Although both Carr and Cascio pose very interesting points that made me thinking of this ever-rapidly changing technology that surrounds us everyday, I believe that Cascio made a more convincing point. Carr addresses the issues that come along with being so accustomed to the use of technology. Carr believes that by using the internet, we are becoming less intellectual as we begin to rely a lot more on the Net. However, Carr refers to much of the internet’s uses in a very negative light and rarely touches on the positive side of the internet. One of the main arguments that drew me towards Cascio is the fact that he is able to realistically analyze the technology that is shaping our world. Cascio draws the point across that in reality, there is no turning back from where technology has taken us. As such, it is our responsibility to use that technology which is given unto us and continue to foster it in order to foster a “better” society. He is able to tackle many of the counter arguments such as the take-over by AI’s by saying that with the development of technology, comes the development of the human mind. As technology advances, becomes more productive and smarter, Cascio argues, our society will inevitably follow.

I feel that both Cascio and Carr bring up thought-provoking points about human relationships with technology. They both take into account the fact that the expanse of technology, the prevalence that the internet has in our everyday lives, shape the way we process information and go about our daily routines. Carr’s argument resonated with me more than Cascio’s because I found it more relatable. I have experienced the feeling of having a diminishing attention span due to the constant stimulation provided by media. The internet is home to pretty much anything I could wish to seek out and more. It empowers me immensely, as Cascio brings to light, but it has conditioned my mind to behave differently. I interact with online text in a way that in unique to my interaction with printed text. There are pop-ups, ads, and not to mention the possibility of pulling up a new tab and searching absolutely anything else in the world, which distracts me from committing my full attention to whatever I am reading online. I have become accustomed to focusing on efficiency more than quality understanding and this translates over into my approach with reading books. I find my mind wandering and seeking further stimulation very rapidly upon opening the text.

The fact that years have passed since these articles were written, yet they are still relevant as ever, emphasizes that the content mentioned is a very real and significant aspect of modern society. I fear that as time goes on, the virtual world will continue to swallow up the existence and/or value of print resources. I feel that Cascio and Carr will develop stronger standpoints as time progresses because the severity of what they are talking about is increasing.

I think that Carr makes such a good point when it comes to the fact that you loose concentration and your mind wanders more easily these days. I really recognise myself in that statement. I remember as well that I used to love to read and I read so much growing up, but now I can not remember the last time I finished a book. Very sad to say, but nowadays I do not prioritise them the way I should. And I really do miss getting caught up in a good book, maybe laying out in my backyard during a summer day.
As for Cascio, maybe we do evolve and with that, find new ways of reading a book, instead of holding an actual book. We are indeed getting smarter, at least I like to think so. But maybe we have to make sacrifices to achieve that. On the cost of getting smarter, we pay the price of losing our concentration. Because we arena so used to not having to look for so long before finding all the information we need.
Overall, I agree with Carr. Because I do miss my books and the way I could read a whole book series in a weekend. As he says, it really is a different kind of reading today, both with different purposes and with new techniques. Today I feel that we read more to find things out then to actually enjoy the practise of reading.
I believe since these articles were written, the trend of reading things online and not in an actual book have increased. And with that we see so many benefits, its often cheeper, more accessible and takes up less space. But how often do we actually finish that pdf-file that we downloaded before forgetting about it and moving on? At least a real book can stand on a bookshelf and stare at us until we finish it.

After reading both articles I have come to the conclusion that I side more with Carr. I agree with Carr that technology has created a distraction to the way that many live their daily life. When reading this article I felt that I could definitely relate when he brought up how there is a decline in a human’s ability to concentrate while completing simple tasks such as reading. I agree with this statement because there are many instances where I am reading and get easily distracted by the technological devices that surround me. I also agree that the advancement in technology has led many to become instantly gratified. When a person has a question, they are able to easily access the Internet to look up the answer. I agree with Carr that people no longer need the long- term concentration it used to take to problem solve because of the Internet enabling access to any answer instantly.
Cascio did bring up some very good points in his article. Although I tend to side more with Carr, I do agree that the human race does keep evolving to constantly keep improving itself. One of the major downfalls to Cascio’s argument is that evolution is not instantaneous and needs time for it to occur. I do agree with Cascio that we must utilize technology to enhance performance and complete greater things.
In my opinion, the fact that these articles were written 5 years ago does not make much of a difference to how one will view these articles. I find it interesting that one is able to read these articles and see that this argument can still be discussed. Knowing that Carr’s article was written 5 years ago I can say that human concentration has gotten even worse because of the rapid growth in technology.

After reading both Carr and Cascio’s articles I agreed with Carr more than I did with Cascio. Carr makes some excellent points about how our minds are always wandering when we are reading something for long periods of time and that “The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle”(Carr). Deep reading has definitely become a struggle especially when reading books or articles online. Just as I was reading these two articles I found myself getting tired of them and getting the urge to check my phone. I was unable to just sit down and read the two articles straight through without fidgeting. Carr points out that there are many advantages and disadvantages of having the ability to look up everything on Google. It is nice to be able to look up the answer to something in only a couple of seconds but then after we find the answer we stop looking. By doing this, we do not absorb everything and are unable to read more in depth. In this sense Google is making us stupid but also lazy because we are unable to sit for a long period of time and read something. It is true that a lot of the time when I am on Google, my mind is a “swiftly moving stream of particles” where information goes in one ear and comes out the other. On the other hand, Cascio does make a few convincing points in his argument that more technology is actually making us smarter. For example, he mentions that we have so much information at our fingertips and this allows us to “make connections and see patterns” (Cascio). I think this is important when it comes to understanding the world around us. Lastly, I appreciate that he acknowledges the fact that so much technology can be a problem and can cause “technology-induced ADD” (Cascio).
Since these articles were written five years ago I think things have changed in the way that technology has progressed and advanced in the last five years. However, the urge to look up things on Google is still there and I think it has become worse. Today there are so many more books that are becoming digitized and with Iphones people have the ability to look up things on their phones. It is rare when I see someone look up something in a dictionary. Therefore, the only thing I would add to Cascio and Carr’s arguments would be to mention the influence of phones and texting as well as social media.

Although both authors made compelling arguments, I sided with Carr more on the subject as I relate to his findings a lot more, and it influenced me the most because of how close-to-home some of his points were. Like Carr, I too have found that it takes more effort for me to stay concentrated in comparison to when I was younger. Just by reading his article I’d catch myself drifting off thinking about something else, or quickly searching for something on Google. I find myself constantly double tasking when I shouldn’t, and the presence of technology and media has made me less inclined to savor the precious small moments as everything is immediate and convenient. For example, when I was younger I use to read so much more than I do now, partially because I didn’t have the work load I have now, but also because this was a time before I was proficient in technology and had to rely on entertainment the old fashioned way, through books. But now, instead of quickly reading through books and enjoying them like I use to, I now have to take breaks because of either boredom or I feel my attention slipping. I feel my constant exposure to media has not only shorted my attention span, but it also has dulled my experiences, whether it’s from books or just by learning new information. When I read something for too long, I become bored of the information, no matter how compelling I may have found it 15 minutes ago. Perhaps this occurs because of the laziness I have procured from being use to instantaneous information at my fingertips. This is perhaps one of the saddest things I’ve found through my time with technology, as at times, I become numb to enjoyable and delightful experiences.

These articles are still relevant in this society, as technology has increasingly become more prevalent in our lives. What’s changed from five years ago is that this technology is now even more prominent this society as it is constantly updating. In a way, technology has infiltrated our lives, and this modern society would essentially be lost without it. As time passes, these articles will become more relevant as their points and ideas will be proven though time. What I would add to the articles would be how the latest modern technology has affected our society, because with each new technological invention or upgrade comes at a cost of something else, and it would be interesting to explore how society is affect by that.

After reading both articles, I sided with Carr. They both have very good arguments, and very opposite arguments. I could definitely relate with most of the things Carr said. Now that I have the internet, I find my attention span getting smaller and my brain is changing by the way I learn, which is online. The way I learn is by researching and finding information by myself. With all information at my fingertips, I don’t have to do anything to learn, so the information doesn’t stick in my mind. I think that is one of the reasons I agree with Carr that google makes us stupid. By reading a book, the info sticks in my mind and I remember what i read more than what I read online. Cascio said we were smarter by having technology. However, I think its the technology that has gotten smarter, not me. I think since the articles were written, technology has definitely advanced. The main technology that is commonly used has changed as well. I still think Carr was on the right track, even today.

After reading the two articles, I cannot say that I completely agree with one or the other. If anything, I might agree more with Cascio, but they both bring up persuasive points throughout their respective articles. For instance, I remember reading series of books in short periods of time when I was a kid. But as Carr said, when I read books nowadays, I find it harder to focus. For some reason, my mind seems to be more prone to small distractions than the novel I am trying to read. As Carr also says, reading is not something that is instinctive for humans. But although I have learned how to read, sometimes I feel as if I have lost it. On the other hand, I love what Cascio said about fluid intelligence. Cascio defines fluid intelligence as the “ability to find meaning in confusion and to solve new problems, independent of acquired knowledge.” As Professor Perez said in class, we cannot just revert back to our old technological ways. Sure, many of us may not like technology or social networking- but we can’t change it. The only productive thing we can do at this point is to accept where we are and to make the most of it. I feel as if many of us are constantly looking at the negative effects of the internet and trying to create problems that aren’t there. What I took away from Cascio’s article is that we cannot let something like Google or the internet in general have too much of an effect on who we are as people. We need to look for and find solutions instead of fixating on problems. In conclusion, I would say that Cascio’s article influenced me the most.
Although I know much has changed since 2010, if I am being perfectly honest, it feels as if almost nothing has changed. The only things I can think of off the top of my head are that Facebook was still popular and no one had really heard of Instagram yet in 2010. I think this may be because the five year period before 2010, I was a part of the generation that was just being introduced to all this new technology- the IPhone, the Ipad, GoPros, etc. But since then, it has just been newer versions of old products. Although there have been incredible technological achievements in the last five years, nothing will compare to the excitement of the introduction of the first new products. If I had to add something to the arguments, I would say something about how it seems that over the last couple of years, we have these amazing products, yet still seem to never be satisfied by them.

I found myself siding with Cascio in his belief that the human race possesses the capabilities of getting smarter. It makes sense to me that adaptation is a major part of our soecies, which is best exemplified through Cascio’s caveman example. Man has had to adapt with the times, which is a good thing because it influences transformation. Transformation signifies a growth has taken place and today’s society is shaped around that very idea, that we should always be getting better. Carr presents his idea that the internet is in a sense making people more stupid. He introduces his idea that the people using the internet are having more trouble staying focused and when long pieces of text are put in fromt of them, they will choose to skim. I do agree that the internet inspires shortcuts, where people look for ways to get to the answer more quickly without reading in depth. But, i believe that these shortcuts are the way we have adapted to the technology that has become a major part of our lives. Carr suggests that we are thinking differently and i believe that we are, but as a result of adapting to the environment. Considering both of these were written 5 years ago, shouldn’t we not be able to concentrate at all? Technology has become way more involved with everyday people than it was 5 years ago, so if Carr’s beliefs are true, reading and writing this paragraph wouldn’t be possible at all. If it was up to Carr, i wouldn’t be able to focus long enough to write a couple sentences for this assignment. Cascio i believe provides a better all around judgment of technology’s effects on people than Carr, but both do bring valid points concerning the transformation of the internet’s use.

Due to the fact that I was able to easily relate to Carr’s argument, I agree more with him. The most essential and compelling arguments in his piece included the fact that the internet is manipulating how our brain works. I found his example of our attention span for reading books quite compelling and also relatable, which not only increased the validity of his argument, but also increased his credibility as a writer. On thing that I slightly disagree with Carr on however is his questioning of the simple notion that “we’d all be better off if our brains were supplemented by artificial intelligence”. I think we could be. This is because AI would allow us humans to focus our thoughts on the things that are most critical and important to us, thus leaving the more mundane cognitive tasks to AI. I agree with Carr on big data being not only powerful, but also becoming more precise, however I think that this case has become even more a reality since he published this article (especially in the marketing world). One point that I found lacking from his writings was how the use of consumer absorption technologies (such as Google) may limit creativity and individual thinking. I have personally found this to be the case.

If writing this argument in the present day, I would add a lot more information and even specific statistics surround the topic of big data. I would also differentiate and compare mobile technology use (specifically phones and their impacts on the brain and cognition) and more standard computer use in order to learn about the positive and negative effects that each have on humans.

Perhaps it was because the points Carr made in his article felt more relatable to my experience with technology and the internet, but Carr’s arguments influenced me much more than Cascio’s. Agreeing with Carr, I definitely find that my attention span has rapidly decreased. I think it’s particularly interesting that although there tends to be the perception that children have the shortest attention spans, as I have grown older I’ve found that my attention span is comparatively shorter to my childhood days. When reflecting on Carr’s arguments, I would definitely owe my reduced attention span to technology. Relying on speedy connections and training my mind to navigate through and ignore all the “hyperlinks, blinking ads, and other digital gewgaws” has made me lose the ability to even focus on a single article or page in front of me. Technology provides so many distractions that it’s no wonder that our minds are being affected; as Carr says, “our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged.” No matter how intrigued I am by a topic or by a book or whatever content that has caught my attention, my mind inevitably starts to drift off and I instinctively open a new tab in my browser or check my phone. The convenience our devices provide and the gateway of information and entertainment that the internet draws us towards too often keep us from having the pure and meaningful experiences that our generation was able to have as children. Before we were introduced to iPhones and laptops and Netflix our childhood entertainment came from playdates and baby toys and silly games like hide and seek. Nowadays, it seems like everyone’s brains are so easily entertained by the mind-numbing television shows and video games that have been produced.

Although both articles were written a few years ago, I don’t think a significant amount has changed since then. While there have been many updates and improvements to various Apple products and more complex devices have been introduced, the key turning point in technological advancements had already occurred. From that point on, everything seems to be feeding off the original revolutionary technology and spiraling into newer, more complex versions. The only counter argument I would bring up to Carr’s article is that not everything about the internet and technology should be looked at so negatively; the internet really does open up a wide range of knowledge and information available to us and inspires us to seek and learn more. I found it a little difficult to keep up with Cascio’s article because I wasn’t able to relate with many of the examples he was using. I found that he listed too many examples that I was unable to follow and understand the relevance of, despite the intriguing topic. Overall, while both articles make good arguments that I’m able to see both sides of, I definitely found myself taking Carr’s points into further consideration, as many of the arguments forced me to reflect on my daily habits and tendencies.

I really liked both articles and thought they provided some very valid and interesting points about how technology has come to shape the way we interact with the world in the last decade. I found Cascio’s article to be more relatable, because I have seen it happen to me and to everyone else around me. I find myself with a shorter attention span, and though I have always loved to read, I get easily distracted now and really have to work at reading, something that I did not have to do before. With multitudes of information available at our fingertips, I think most of us “Google scholars” just know a little bit about a wide range of things. Which is not a bad thing, but the fact that everything is so instantaneous does not encourage people to take the time and learn something in-depth and with context, which is much more effective and conducive to long term learning. However, I do also agree with Carr because I thought his approach was more realistic. All of this technology is not going anywhere anytime soon, it is in fact just going to get more advanced and we have to learn to adapt. As much as I agree with the fact that technology has had some adverse affects, I am not willing to give any of it up, and there is no denying that it has made my life much easier. Technology has advanced greatly just in the last 5 years, and the world has become more connected and instantaneous, with a larger amounts of people and different generations using all kinds of technology- its not just something the “kids” are doing.

It’s interesting. As I was reading these articles, I became more and more aware of my desire to just quickly check Facebook and respond to my friend’s comment. I stayed focused until I had to look up the definition of “banal” and ended up finding synonyms on an online thesaurus and then searching some other random words to see what other synonyms could come up with. 30 seconds later, I was back at reading the article. That little break allow me to read six or so more paragraphs in the article before again, I was itching to look something else up. It may have just been that these articles spoke of our small span of attention online, but I felt very unfocused and unsettled completing this assignment. Carr’s argument holds true to me in this sense, my attention has seriously had some drawbacks increasingly in recent years. I enjoy Cascio’s article more, however. He does a very good job of analyzing what he believes our future with technology will be in a way that seems very plausible. He is able to very plausibly break down our relationship with technology and makes the point that humans are very good at adapting; perhaps technology is part of evolution to survive our coming struggles with the world. His description of “fluid resistance” resonates with me. As a child, I memorized my multiplication tables, the 50 states and their capitals, etc. While this was all useful knowledge, my skills of creative problem solving and ability to decipher mass amounts of information at a time has proved useful to me far more.
Carr’s article was less than a decade ago, but when we talk about technology, that could just as well be a century. I wonder what he would say now with the ability for us to pull out cell phones even during a conversation as a distraction from a real person. His entire argument seems to still hold true in the present day, perhaps more so than that of Cascio. Cascio does an excellent job of giving a realistic reason for his hope for our future. But we cannot ignore that our future is just as grim now as it was six years ago. We still are faced with a serious shortage of resources and of a weakening global climate, and our technological advances are veering more to entertainment and consumer interest rather than bettering the world. Society has become too engrossed in itself to put all of its considerable power into fixing our world and surviving. The long term fix can always be found later right?

I agree more so with Carr, but then again Cascio makes some valid points. Google is ultimately making us less knowledgeable since we are able to find little bits and pieces of information available, but then again, its making things easier on us and not having that challenge that we would used to have for finding information would not let us retain what we learned. The whole point of finding things challenging will help us retain information since we are challenging our brain, hence why we read and write down notes is challenging ourselves to go through information so we can learn it since our brain is working hard to gain information. With information at our hand, we can temporarily retain the information, but we will not learn it so much since the information is right in front of us, telling it what it is. I’ve been told a lot of times for simple tasks of what to do or someone telling me what to do, but I won’t retain it for long since it’s just thrown to me, my brain is not being forced to learn the information, so it will stay for a bit, but I won’t retain it as if I were to try and learn something. The same thing applies with Google, I will learn a small fact from going on Google, but I will not retain it for long since it’s given to me, I’m not going out of my way like a book and reading to help retain the information. So with this sense, I agree with Carr, but Cascio makes a good counterargument. Maybe our brains are just not currently trained to do reading online. Our brain is reverting back into an infancy state with trying to use an online basis, but training our brain to do things online can help us master things like we did with regular books, since reading is not apart of our genes, it is a skill humans picked up. This article, although from five years ago, has not changed much to today’s technology since a lot of the same applications still apply today, but things I would add is the simplification of things such as Instagram and Snapchat. Other than that, things from five years ago have changed, but the applications are still the same thing.

At first, I thought I agreed with Carr’s argument that the advancement in technology has diluted our intelligence, and our state of mind has been altered permanently for the worse as a species. However, Cascio presented a point I truly carry a similar stance with in which humans are ever-evolving creatures in terms of our intelligence and the way we utilize tools and technology for the advancement of our survival and development. The point that truly captured my attention was Cascio’s comparison of how modern technology, the Net, and AI are all being scrutinized is similar to how Aristotle scrutinized writing, and how critics scrutinized printing; both turned out to be essential for the advancement of human development and mental intelligence. As a species, we “get smarter” as time progresses and as our mind develops. Thus, I believe that the deep reading state that is being diluted is simply part of the process of human’s mental development to a new stage in which this feature is unnecessary. The technology that we created has empowered as with the ability to cope with things through quicker means in which information and intelligence can be accessible throughout humans in general, not specialized experts. For instance, my transition into America has been quite a fast process; initially, it was admitted a massive overflow of information as I come to this new and foreign place that presents itself as a global center of intelligence and information. Hovever, after a short period of time, I easily adapted to this new mentality and flow of information, and my lifestyle has altered. That is the special feature that the homo sapiens of the Nooscene era possess, the ability to cope to changes much quicker than previous humans. Development must come with change, and to be able to change quickly allow for quicker development.
Surprisingly, these two articles are quite aged, but the topics they present are still relevant today because in the era we thrive in, technology becomes outdated in just a matter of a year or months. 5 years, in terms of today’s technological timeframe, seem more like 50 years to the people of the 20th century. However, the people of today live a lifestyle based on technology, but we become masters of the ever-changing technology due to our ability to cope much faster than previous generations. This allow us to “get smarter” as we ride on the waves of technological advancements for the advancements of our intelligence.

After reading both articles and understanding both arguments of the implication of the internet I think that I favor Nicolas Carr more but not necessarily for the exact same reasons. I would agree with Carr from the aspect that it is the type of media that is used to translate information, and that there is a kinesthetic connection between actual text book and some characters on a screen. Although that may be true of the connection between screen and tangible material, I think there is an argument that is missing between both Carr and Cascio. Taking from personal experience I thing that there isn’t really an altering connection of media, none of the authors touch in the fact of the difficulty of find something. The internet is a giant resource, an massive and amended encyclopedia that is updated and changed all the time, and both authors touch on it a little bit with the point that there is an abundant amount of information that can accessed at any point and with ease. Both fail to acknowledge the idea of difficulty, and the amount of time that is needed to retain information. We all have these ticks and tendencies and no matter what kind of media the information is presented on, it the individual has to work to find the information, it will be remembered and therefore become valuable. The great thing about the internet is speed, and the ability to look up anything at one time in seconds. The idea with looking information up in the book it that it is time consuming, boring, and long, and because of that you remember the information better because you know that the second you close that book and walk away there is gonna be effort needed to find that piece of evidence again, where as the internet as Cascio discusses allows us to fill out minds with information at ridiculous fast speeds. The part I agree with Carr the most on however is the fact that the internet isn’t necessarily makings stupider, its just making us not value information as much because we are able to accesses these concepts at any point. We don’t as a society value information anymore, and we take for granted the knowledge beach we know that we can just refer to the internet as our data base because we don’t have the need to store it or remember it. The idea of retaining information better because of the media, for example the computer screen verse a textbook is completely false and doesn’t matter, because as humans we are a species that learns to adapt, thats how we have been able to survive for this long, and I would completely agree with Cascio that we will evolve with the times and we will adapt to the change of how information is now communicated. However, that said, I don’t agree with the idea that we will get smarted because of it, but we would get lazier because of it, and we know that we have that database that acts as an extension of our own brains today. In terms of the time period of which they wrote this, I don’t think that they are out of date, and i think that they are right on with their arguments, but I think they are a little misguided and are missing the hard working aspect of it and the value and process of looking something up, rather than just googling it or using the internet. Informations is the key to knowledge, not doubt; but how we remember that knowledge is even more valuable, and what is true about all smart and intelligent people, is that they are hardworking, in all aspects of their lives and it isn’t about what the form of information is, but how its found, and the work that is used to find it and through that hard work the knowledge is valued and will be remembered longer, and that is the key to intelligence.